Effect of Vergence Adaptation on Convergence–Accommodation: Model Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several theoretical control models depict the adaptation effects observed in the accommodation and vergence mechanisms of the human visual system. Two current quantitative models differ in their approach of defining adaptation and in identifying the effect of controller adaptation on their respective cross-links between the vergence and accommodative systems. Here, we compare the simulation results of these adaptation models with empirical data obtained from emmetropic adults when they performed sustained near task through + 2D lens addition. The results of our experimental study showed an initial increase in exophoria (a divergent open-loop vergence position) and convergence-accommodation (CA) when viewing through +2D lenses. Prolonged fixation through the near addition lenses initiated vergence adaptation, which reduced the lens-induced exophoria and resulted in a concurrent reduction of CA. Both models showed good agreement with empirical measures of vergence adaptation. However, only one model predicted the experimental time course of reduction in CA. The pattern of our empirical results seem to be best described by the adaptation model that indicates the total vergence response to be a sum of two controllers, phasic and tonic, with the output of phasic controller providing input to the cross-link interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".